Also, 'quick' and 'low' quality levels doesn't allow to override options like aliasing, steep filter and phase response. So I disabled them. I don't think that foobar users play music on ancient or old hardware

Hmm, ok, i take it this one is better then But im wondering: What should i use for samplerate conversion? (From 44100 to 96000)My soundcard (Onkyo SE-90PCI, highend stereo soundcard, VIA Envy24 chip) or this plugin, any idea which one is better?

lvqcl, good work with the port, and good pointers to some well informed posts.

vigylant, the bandwidth of the SoX SRC is configurable up to 99.7% which pretty much matches that of SSRC (standard). But be aware, that the closer you get to the nyquist, the more artifacts you get; look closely at the transition graphs for the Shibatch SRC and you'll see that (esp. for the hp version) the transition lies to the right of the ideal filter's -- i.e. aliasing is occurring.

I had carefully compared this SRC, based on SOX 14.2.0 with other foobar resamplers and it is sonically the best resampler out there, IMHO of course. On this SRC I appreciate very low artifacts, frequency responce, good transition and very low noise floor.Then I found this, maybe well known side yet (http://src.infinitewave.ca), which basically confirmed my experience. SOX with VHQ settings is according to this side for me in pair with iZ RX Advanced (High steepness), which is in some parameters maybe very slightly better, but has also a little higher noise floor, which is on sweep test result picture quite visible and therefore maybe for highend headphones or speakers also audible.So many many thanks to the author for hard work and time for creating and uploading this free soft, which will certainly improve listening experience for people with low/medium quality sound cards/int. chips. To author, I intercede for future development of this great plug-in to make it even better, btw I didn't find any bugs in this version yet.So thank you very very much again

@jaro1: I am not convinced that you did, indeed, hear a difference. The quantifiable differences between PPHS and this resampler are below the threshold of human hearing. Please re-read our terms of service, paying attention to point 8.

That is not to diminish the efforts of the developer of this component. I am now using it myself for high quality work, due to the objective differences. Subjectively, however, I am not convinced it is possible to discern between PPHS and the SoX resampler. The site you cited primarily concerns itself with inaudible qualities.

@jaro1: I am not convinced that you did, indeed, hear a difference. The quantifiable differences between PPHS and this resampler are below the threshold of human hearing. Please re-read our terms of service, paying attention to point 8.

That is not to diminish the efforts of the developer of this component. I am now using it myself for high quality work, due to the objective differences. Subjectively, however, I am not convinced it is possible to discern between PPHS and the SoX resampler. The site you cited primarily concerns itself with inaudible qualities.

Because of very short time I could not write all circumstances of listening tests I'done, now I can only add, that I wasn't alone, there were three of us, loudspeakers-B&W Sig. Diamond; headphones - AKG K701. But according to service terms you are absolutely right, but I wanted because of time shortness write something about our SUBJECTIVE observations and at least say thanks to the author, sorry for forum rules breaking and also for my bad english.

The example of VERY HIGH (-v) looks almost the same as the Secret Rabbit result with -c0 andSecret Rabbit -c1 looks very close to MEDIUM with 90% bandwidth (-mb 90). Other than that, I don't know enough to be able to interpret the impulse response per se.

Hi, I know it's a little offtopic, but I wanted to ask lvqcl to something, because I suppose he knows SOX internal routines quiet good yet.Would it be possible in the future make a plugin, which implements SOX deemphasis filter? (deemph: ISO 908 CD de-emphasis (shelving) IIR filter)

Till now I use for it wav impuls responses with FB2Ks Convolver plugin, but this isn't a right choice according to this german page:http://www.radonmaster.de/robernd/tAFILTER.html (thanks to author and Surfi for the link)On this side there are packed wav signals, with explanation, for testing different deemphasis filters ( there is also filter of old SOX version, which results very badly, it altered also stereo image... )Filter from recent SOX version is perfect, but solution with Convolver plugin (whatever impulse I use) alters a signal after closser look in Audition quiet a lot from what it should do, although frequencygoing could be very close and therefore after listening undistinguishable.

For me is use of Convolver plugin, at least for this purpose, a little unpractical and ultimately inaccurate, so therefore this idea. By the way, it may or may not be a problem, but I think SOX deemph filter has 32bit internal precision, which is, on the other side, for this kind of operation absolutely necessary.

Hi, I know it's a little offtopic, but I wanted to ask lvqcl to something, because I suppose he knows SOX internal routines quiet good yet.

I think bandpass knows them much more

QUOTE (jaro1 @ Mar 10 2009, 13:00)

Filter from recent SOX version is perfect, but solution with Convolver plugin (whatever impulse I use) alters a signal after closser look in Audition quiet a lot from what it should do, although frequencygoing could be very close and therefore after listening undistinguishable.

For me is use of Convolver plugin, at least for this purpose, a little unpractical and ultimately inaccurate, so therefore this idea. By the way, it may or may not be a problem, but I think SOX deemph filter has 32bit internal precision, which is, on the other side, for this kind of operation absolutely necessary.

I tested SoX and Convolver with my impulse: difference between them is about -130 dB. So convolver is quite accurate.And don't use "Auto level adjust" option.